Why isn't anyone doing anything about North Korea?

[dmp]

I agree. North Korea is not a nation, it is Kim Jong Il alone, a personality cult. By all accounts he goes beyond dictator and believes he enters the realm of diety.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A40505-2003May10?language=printer

If his realm is ending, he will in all likeliness, go down in flames with little regard for his people. Remember, he's a movie buff and his favorite movies are American actions movies.

One .50 caliber round from .75 miles away is all it'd take to cure that problem

 

[dilloduck]

Dillo, i think that's where I'm getting at. Right now, the attack does not necessarily have to be a nuclear exchange. Perhaps, force isn't even needed with international consensus to place economic and military pressure at or within, their borders.

However, without pressure, which let's face it, the international community is not doing at all, the situation will eventually build up so that it will be nuclear. North Korea, just has to be cut off.

The problem is timeline. North Korea could go nuclear within the next year and develop a relatively large arsenal subsequently after that.

Problem is that for pressure to be effective, EVERYONE has to actively support it. We saw how succesful that was in Iraq.

 

[NATO AIR]

deep rooted suspicion... our intel on N. Korea is more broke than an Enron investor.

 

[NATO AIR]

i believe it because if you read "the fifty year wound" you'll be shitting yourself with how many ultra elaborate underground facilities the Soviets built without us even having a clue.

 

[Isaac Brock]

One .50 caliber round from .75 miles away is all it'd take to cure that problem

With respect to NK, that may be all what it takes. Apparently, he and his eldest son aren't on the greatest terms. There is room for internal dissention. I know state assasinations are against most international laws, but hey, the idea still floats.

 

[Isaac Brock]

Problem is that for pressure to be effective, EVERYONE has to actively support it. We saw how succesful that was in Iraq.

No doubt.

However Iraq and North Korea are indeed different. Iraq was suspected of WMD, though they never admitted it, and hasn't been found. NK is suspected of WMD and admits it is actively developping them and has shown the willingness to use them. Remember when they shot a new missile over Japan just to prove they had the capacity?

 

[NATO AIR]

that certainly got japan's attention... they still talk about that

 

[dilloduck]

With respect to NK, that may be all what it takes. Apparently, he and his eldest son aren't on the greatest terms. There is room for internal dissention. I know state assasinations are against most international laws, but hey, the idea still floats.

Hopefully he hasn't stipulated that if he his killed certain "buttons" are to be pushed!

 

[Isaac Brock]

Hopefully he hasn't stipulated that if he his killed certain "buttons" are to be pushed!

Oi vey, that'd be terrible, but the suggestion, unfortunately, is not that outlandish.

 

[onedomino]

d, they've had 50 years to build elaborate underground facilities to put all sorts of things in (especially nukes and nuke launchers, along with what is probably now the world's largest active bio and chem arsenal)

NATO is correct on this.

Attacking the DPRK would be horrible beyond comprehension. For those interested, here is a summary of DPRK military capability: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/dprk/. Intelligence services estimate that the pariah nation has at least five nuclear weapons. Some estimates I have read range as high as 100 devices (hopefully those guesses are wrong).

Here is the military reality: we cannot bet that we will be able to take out DPRK nukes before at least some of them are used. Moreover we cannot bet that these devices will not be used against Seoul (or Japan). If they were, there would be millions of casualties. Twelve million people live in Seoul. Clinton wasted the military option to destroy DPRK nuclear weapons capability in 1994. Even then, most would argue that the military option was not reasonable because of the huge number of conventional weaponry civilian deaths that would occur in Seoul.

 

[Zhukov]

It seems to be North Korean and also Iran, are the greatest threats to world security. Why does there not seem to be any pressure being pushed on by the world's superpowers. Forget Iraq. NK seems to me to be a clear and present danger.

Saddam Hussein was an obvious threat to world stability (as he demostrated on a number of occasions) and obviously a criminal (as is well documented) and the world's democracies couldn't even agree to deal with him. Not only could they not agree to deal with him, some actively tried to subvert the U.S. and it's allies in their efforts to rid the world of Saddam Hussein's dictatorship, and are still trying to subvert their efforts to stabilize Iraq.

Why, in this sort of global environment, are you surprised that other problems are left to fester?

 

[dmp]

NATO is correct on this.

Attacking the DPRK would be horrible beyond comprehension. For those interested, here is a summary of DPRK military capability: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/dprk/. Intelligence services estimate that the pariah nation has at least five nuclear weapons. Some estimates I have read range as high as 100 devices (hopefully those guesses are wrong).

Here is the military reality: we cannot bet that we will be able to take out DPRK nukes before at least some of them are used. Moreover we cannot bet that these devices will not be used against Seoul (or Japan). If they were, there would be millions of casualties. Twelve million people live in Seoul. Clinton wasted the military option to destroy DPRK nuclear weapons capability in 1994. Even then, most would argue that the military option was not reasonable because of the huge number of conventional weaponry civilian deaths that would occur in Seoul.

do you feel that intel is more, or less accurate than the intel we had on Iraq prior to the war?

 

[onedomino]

do you feel that intel is more, or less accurate than the intel we had on Iraq prior to the war?

-------

d -- that is a very good question. I have no way of knowing the answer.

But let's do this thought experiment: Imagine that you are the President of the US. The CIA comes to you and says, "Sir, we estimate that the DPRK has five nuclear weapons. We think three are mounted on land based ballistic missiles and two are loaded on sea lauched ballistic missiles. Sir, we have almost complete confidence that this is the entire DPRK nuclear arsenal. We know where these weapons are located. We have almost complete confidence that the weapons can be neutralized before they are launched. Sir, do we have your permission to proceed?" d -- as President, would you authorize the attack? My opinion is that we cannot know with 100 percent certainty that we will be able to preempt the use of DPRK nuclear weapons. Ethically, we cannot gamble with the lives of millions of Koreans living in Seoul.

As I said earlier, the horse has left the barn.

The Australian perspective on military action against the DPRK and some comparisons with Iraq: http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/rn/2002-03/03rn29.htm

An analysis of military options to destroy DPRK nuclear weapons capabilities: http://cns.miis.edu/research/korea/dprkmil.htm